Guy pissed at the IRS

[fdknuckles]

Re: Guy pissed at the IRS

I know my wife and I both work, but disagree with your statement saying it takes 2 incomes to stay afloat.
As Americans, we have constantly redefined what lifestyle means (predominantly driven by the media). If we were still content living in the manner of our Grandparents, a single income family would very much be affordable.
The media constantly bombards us with what the "Normal American Life" is. The flat screen TV, with 200+ channels. The brand new $30,000 car loan ( at 0% apr). High speed internet, exotic vacations, parties, steak with every meal, the large home with a manicured garden, eating out several times a week.
America has gotten away from it's lunchpale roots and has become a consumer nation funded by debt, which sooner or later must be paid.

Your absolutely correct, but I blame a lot of that on the availability of cheap and endless credit. The fact some company is willing to expend 30k$ worth of credit to a 20 year old with bad credit is beyond me. Its predatory lending no matter how you look at it. Then the TV constantly promotes a lavish lifestyle as well.


Then again, I am only 23 and I am the only one working, and my wife, daughter and I live pretty comfortably. So I don't have much room to complain.

I understand why companies lend money, to make mony...it's their business. I don't blame them. It the peope who CHOOSE to live above their means that are responsible.
I know I can by a $100k sports car with my credit. I also realize I can't afford it. If you sign on the dotted line, you are responsible for the debt. If you can't pay it back, then your credit is ruined for "x" number of years, but the credit company is out the money. The problem is our governments reluctance to allow a credit company be responsible for it's own poor business practices and go out of business. Instead the govt, bails them out, allowing them to repeat the cycle. You and I, tax paying citizens are bailing out credit companies through the govt, artificially condonning the pratice of subpar credit loans.

JMO.

Death to the 2 party system!

[sgreger1]

http://www.visualeconomics.com/presi...tures-by-year/


Both sides are the same.

[snupy]

Re: Guy pissed at the IRS

The problem is our governments reluctance to allow a credit company be responsible for it's own poor business practices and go out of business.

Our government allows that to happen ALL the time, but not in the case where the damage is so widespread it would lead to the collapse of our entire economy, which is EXACTLY as it should be and most particularly in the case of a situation where we had the largest asset bubble (housing) in history

The stupidest thing of all our government could have done would be to try to slash the deficit in the midst of the recession. That's what Roosevelt did. We learned the lesson from the last time and so didn't make that same mistake again.

[snupy]

http://www.visualeconomics.com/presi...tures-by-year/

EXECELLENT DIAGRAM! Do you remember the myth of the Reagan days, wherein we were told that tax CUTS would lead to HIGHER tax revenues? That graph shows exactly how much of a fantasy that idea was.

[snupy]

Re: Guy pissed at the IRS

The fact some company is willing to expend 30k$ worth of credit to a 20 year old with bad credit is beyond me. Its predatory lending no matter how you look at it.

About 4-5 years ago, I had a mortgage lender tell me I could get a mortgage on my signature alone, with no documentation whatsoever - no documentation of income, no tax return, nothing. That's when I knew something funky was going on. Admittedly, my score is high, above 750, but even so, it is shear LUNACY to write mortgages, under ANY circumstances, without at least verifying ability to pay. And no, I didn't apply for a mortgage, even though it was offered on a silver platter.

[fdknuckles]

Re: Guy pissed at the IRS

The fact some company is willing to expend 30k$ worth of credit to a 20 year old with bad credit is beyond me. Its predatory lending no matter how you look at it.

About 4-5 years ago, I had a mortgage lender tell me I could get a mortgage on my signature alone, with no documentation whatsoever - no documentation of income, no tax return, nothing. That's when I knew something funky was going on. Admittedly, my score is high, above 750, but even so, it is shear LUNACY to write mortgages, under ANY circumstances, without at least verifying ability to pay. And no, I didn't apply for a mortgage, even though it was offered on a silver platter.

that company should be allowed to go out of business. Point exactly. Let's let the market crash, it did anyway. If the govt doesn't intefere, the market will self correct (as it has). With the govt expousing capitolism on one hand and interfering with the other......does it really make a difference. Llaissez faire ecconomics...the truth will balance it all out.

[sgreger1]

http://www.visualeconomics.com/presi...tures-by-year/

EXECELLENT DIAGRAM! Do you remember the myth of the Reagan days, wherein we were told that tax CUTS would lead to HIGHER tax revenues? That graph shows exactly how much of a fantasy that idea was.

Lol, yes carrying out class warfare by taxing the rich more and more up unto infinity is the only answer! I agree everyone should pay their fare share but fair doesn't mean that we punish success either. Taxing the shit out of couples making 250k+ and labeling them as the evil rich is unfair. The right uses an impending socialist commie takeover as the boogeyman, and the left uses successful families as their boogeyman.

The chart proves my point, that we're screwed either way, regardless of which boogeyman we choose for the moment.

Nothing ever changes. That is all.

[sgreger1]

Re: Guy pissed at the IRS

The stupidest thing of all our government could have done would be to try to slash the deficit in the midst of the recession.

Because letting the market correct itself and spending less is recipe for disaster, surely.

[snupy]

Lol, yes carrying out class warfare by taxing the rich more and more up unto infinity is the only answer!

Who here is arguing in the above point, aside from you?

[snupy]

Re: Guy pissed at the IRS

Because letting the market correct itself and spending less is recipe for disaster, surely.

It most certainly is foolhardy to reduce the deficit in the midst of recession.. That's precisely what Roosevelt did and we know how well that turned out. How smart do you think it is, if business is tapped out and have no money to risk in recession, to halt government spending as well? In what way would HIGHER unemployment help the economy or the citizens or businesses, who can't sell as many products and services if unemployment were even higher than it presently is?

Gee, I wonder what might be the point of expanding the money supply in the midst of recession, devaluing the dollar, then putting the breaks on inflation? Could it mean we pay back the deficit with inflated dollars, ie, more cheaply?

Naaa, it couldn't possibly be.

Deficit reduction during an economic contraction, they will argue, runs the risk of deepening the contraction, causing greater human suffering, and prolonging the point at which the economy starts to recover. --->That's what happened in 1929, and we really don't want to go there again<---. There's also a good chance that a fiscal austerity regime could, in the long run, even make future deficits bigger -- because an even weaker economy means less tax revenue and greater social welfare spending (if the government continues to do things like pay for unemployment benefits.)

Our best evidence for this, say the Keynesians, comes from both the outset of the Great Depression, and midway through Roosevelt's second term, in 1937, when the president gave in to deficit hawks and attempted to rein in government spending, a move that is widely seen as crippling the recovery that had at long last gotten under way.

[sgreger1]

Lol, yes carrying out class warfare by taxing the rich more and more up unto infinity is the only answer!

Who here is arguing in the above point, aside from you?

It just seems that you are part of the "tax the successful" group and believe that we can solve our problems by taking more money from the rich. Perhaps I am mistaken.

[sgreger1]

Re: Guy pissed at the IRS

Because letting the market correct itself and spending less is recipe for disaster, surely.

It most certainly is foolhardy to reduce the deficit in the midst of recession.. That's precisely what Roosevelt did and we know how well that turned out. How smart do you think it is, if business is tapped out and have no money to risk in recession, to halt government spending as well? In what way would HIGHER unemployment help the economy or the citizens or businesses, who can't sell as many products and services if unemployment were even higher than it presently is?

Gee, I wonder what might be the point of expanding the money supply in the midst of recession, devaluing the dollar, then putting the breaks on inflation? Could it mean we pay back the deficit with inflated dollars, ie, more cheaply?

Naaa, it couldn't possibly be.

Deficit reduction during an economic contraction, they will argue, runs the risk of deepening the contraction, causing greater human suffering, and prolonging the point at which the economy starts to recover. --->That's what happened in 1929, and we really don't want to go there again<---. There's also a good chance that a fiscal austerity regime could, in the long run, even make future deficits bigger -- because an even weaker economy means less tax revenue and greater social welfare spending (if the government continues to do things like pay for unemployment benefits.)

Our best evidence for this, say the Keynesians, comes from both the outset of the Great Depression, and midway through Roosevelt's second term, in 1937, when the president gave in to deficit hawks and attempted to rein in government spending, a move that is widely seen as crippling the recovery that had at long last gotten under way.

I'm not saying we should freeze spending and let the economy grind to a halt. But throwing unheard of amounts of cash at the very institutions that were responsible for our collapse to keep them afloat doesn't seem like the right thing to do. I could understand spending on things that jumpstart the economy, but giving it to banks, GM, AIG etc seems like something that should be avoided. They argued that by giving this money to banks it would help keep credit flowing, then they got mad when the banks did something else with the money and it didn't go as planned.

It seems like an excuse for a transfer of wealth to these big corporations as opposed to actually helping the economy. Like GM, who we gave billions of dollars to so they wouldn't go under and have to lay off thousands... what did they do? They took the money, laid of thousands, and are still going under.